Re: New syntax spec

>>>Rick Jelliffe said:
> The draft for the refactored syntax looks much clearer.
> 
> One point that seems a little uncertain to me is whether the
> new productions are supposed to be interpreted
> open or closed.  

I think they are meant to closed, if you mean that they define the
entire scope of legal forms.  I recognise that in filling out this,
it is possible I have missed out some legal forms.  This is a mistake
if I have done this.

> For example, take 4.12 propertyAttr: it seems
> that if a typed-node element has an rdf:type attribute, it cannot have
> any attributes from any other namespace.  If it does not have
> an rdf:type then the element can only have one attribute in
> a non-RDF namespace.
> 
> Is that correct?

I don't think so.

propertyAttr is always used in the same form.  In typedNode
  http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-rdf-syntax-grammar-20010906/#typedNode

it used like this:
 [attributes]=set(idAboutAttr?, bagIdAttr?, propertyAttr*),

i.e the propertyAttr term can be repeated 0 or more times.  Each of
these propertyAttr uses can be either a typeAttr or propAttr.  I
think this does not restrict the use of multiple rdf:type properties
and/or other namespaced properties in any way.   Does that make sense?

Dave